User:Blouvel

Revenue Assurance Entry
Blouvel, I am sure you started the revenue assurance entry in good faith, but I would like to warn you about the history of this page.

The previous revenue assurance entry was permanently deleted (including its history etc) from Wikipedia because it was a magnet for spam. Its contents were also hotly contested by rival groups and this resulted in several years of aggressive edit and counter-edit. Sources were rarely cited, and when cited were often contested on the basis of legitimacy as a source. In particular, it was impossible to get agreement on what was an acceptable and genuine reference, and what was merely a form of advertising in disguise.

If you sincerely want to monitor this entry, make it suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and work to ensure that spam and bias is excluded, you will get my full support and hopefully the support of others. However, this will not be possible unless you intend to watch the page on a very regular basis and actively engage in reverting the spam that is likely to follow. If you do not intend to put that much time into the page, I will likely check back on the page and if it starts to accumulate spam and fails to meet Wikipedia's standards, I will ask for it to be deleted again.

Please understand I do not wish to prevent you submitting a high-quality encyclopedia entry on revenue assurance. I only wish to ensure that Wikipedia's standards are maintained and it is not allowed to be used as a soapbox or promotional tool. I will support as best I can, if you can put enough time in to realize that goal.

For now, you can see that the definition you proposed is slated to be taken out of Wikipedia. Let me also observe that your definition, and its source, are likely to start the cycle of spam again. The definition of revenue assurance is not one of those from the two industry groups that became the focus of much of the previous debate - the TM Forum and Global Revenue Assurance Professional Association. I think this makes it likely that others may contend your definition or add their own supported opinions as if they were facts. You cite a commercial source, and point to a commercial website. Chances are that others will interpret this as a sign they can add self-promoting links to commercial sites. My advice to you is that you will soon need to extend and improve the content, and make reference to several sources, if you are to discourage a negative cycle of edits and counter-edits, spam and counter-spam. If you are not keen on contributing that level of effort, I would politely request that you ensure that the discussion page is made use of, and you try to begin a healthy discussion with other possible contributors on what should be the content.Diogenes the Cynic (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)